Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE


*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

LATEEF DICKERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CPL. THOMAS W. WEBSTER, IV, and
CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE,
Defendants.

C.A. No. _____________

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Lateef Dickerson, by and through his attorneys, Richard H. Morse,
Esquire, and Daniel C. Herr, Esquire, who brings this Complaint against Cpl. Thomas W.
Webster, IV and the City of Dover, Delaware.
FACTS
Parties
1.

Plaintiff, Lateef Dickerson, (Plaintiff), is a Delaware resident who may be contacted,

for purposes of this litigation through his counsel, Richard H. Morse, Esquire, at the ACLU of
Delaware, 100 West 10th Street, Suite 603, Wilmington, DE 19801 and/or Daniel C. Herr,
Esquire, at The Norman Law Firm, 1225 North King Street, Suite 1000, Wilmington, DE 19801.
2.

Defendant, Cpl. Thomas W. Webster IV (Webster), was a police officer employed by

the City of Dover and its police department and was acting under color of law as an agent or
employee of the City of Dover Police Department at all relevant times hereto.

3.

Defendant, City of Dover, Delaware (City or Dover) is a municipal corporation duly

organized, existing and operating under and pursuant to the applicable laws of the State of
Delaware and at all relevant times was the employer of Webster. It has, and at all times material
hereto has had responsibility for hiring, training, supervision, disciplining and retention of police
officers employed by the City including Webster.
Jurisdiction and Venue
4.

This is a civil action for damages and injunctive relief arising under the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, Article
I, 6 of the Delaware Constitution and the statutory and common law of the State of Delaware.
5.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1331, 1343(a)(3) and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 to entertain
claims arising under state law.
6.

Personal jurisdiction is proper since all parties reside in the District, conduct business in

the District, and the unlawful actions giving rise to the claim took place within this District.
7.

Venue is properly in this Court pursuant 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because the events giving

rise to the suit occurred in this judicial District.


General Allegations
8.

On August 24, 2013, in the evening hours, while Plaintiff and others were at a Hess

Service Station located on North DuPont Highway in Dover, Delaware to purchase gasoline, a
disturbance involving several customers, including Plaintiff, occurred inside the Hess Service
Station.
9.

Shortly thereafter, the Hess Service Station clerked warned all present that he was going

to call the police.

10.

As a result, Plaintiff and others left the premises.

11.

Plaintiff crossed North DuPont Highway. As he approached a nearby building that was

across the street from the Hess Gas Station, Webster arrived in a police vehicle.
12.

Webster got out of his vehicle and instructed Plaintiff to freeze and to put his hands in the

air.
13.

Plaintiff complied. As Plaintiff stood there, Webster then approached him from behind,

struck Plaintiff, and commanded Plaintiff to get on his knees and put his hands up.
14.

Plaintiff complied again. Webster then knocked Plaintiff unconscious.

15.

Prior to Webster knocking Plaintiff unconscious, Webster did not tell Plaintiff he was

under arrest.
16.

Plaintiff regained consciousness as he arrived at Kent General Hospital in a police

vehicle driven by Webster. Webster told Plaintiff he was being taken to the hospital because he
might have a broken jaw.
17.

Plaintiff had suffered, inter alia, a broken jaw and facial lacerations, including lacerations

to his lip, nose, and forehead.


18.

At Kent General Hospital Plaintiff received stiches in his upper lip, to the area in and

around is nose and nostril, and to his forehead.


19.

After an x-ray, Plaintiff was also told his jaw was broken. Plaintiff was instructed to

follow-up with a specialist.


20.

Following Plaintiffs discharge from Kent General Hospital, Plaintiff received medical

treatment for his injuries, including surgery on his jaw.


21.

Thereafter, Plaintiff was taken to the Dover Police Department and charged with crimes.

22.

An officer took Plaintiff to Justice of the Peace Court 5, where he was released on his

own recognizance at around 5 a.m.


23.

Thereafter, Plaintiff received medical treatment for his jaw, including but not limited to

surgery on or about September 3, 2013.


24.

Plaintiff did not prevent or attempt to prevent Webster from effecting an arrest and did

not struggle with Webster.


25.

There were no circumstances that justified such a use of force against Plaintiff.

26.

Websters use of force against Plaintiff was not necessary to effect a detention or arrest of

Plaintiff.
27.

Websters use of force against Webster was not justified.

28.

As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing actions by Webster, Plaintiff:

a. suffered physical injuries, which are or may be permanent in nature; and


b. has been required to undergo medical treatment and incur costs for medical treatment.
29.

Upon information and belief, Defendant City initiated an internal investigation

concerning Webster and his alleged use of excessive force against Plaintiff.
30.

Upon information and belief, Defendant City discontinued its internal affairs

investigation concerning the incident described herein without finding that Webster had violated
police department policies or had otherwise done anything wrong.
31.

Upon information and belief, Webster received no discipline, punishment, or further

training or counseling as a result of the incident described herein.


COUNT I: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983,
4TH AMENDMENT USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE DEFENDANT WEBSTER
32.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations in this Complaint,

above and below, as though fully set forth herein.


4

33.

Webster used excessive force when he violently struck Plaintiff.

34.

The arrest and the beating violated Plaintiffs clearly established and well settled

constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution to be free from the unreasonable, excessive and unjustified use of force.
35. Plaintiff is entitled to recover under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Webster.
COUNT II: BATTERY DEFENDANT WEBSTER
36.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations in this Complaint,

above and below, as though fully set forth herein.


37.

Websters actions described hereinabove were without Plaintiffs consent.

38.

Websters actions were unreasonable and unjustified under the circumstances.

39.

Webster committed an intentional, willful, and malicious battery against Plaintiff when

he violently struck Plaintiff.


40.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover against Webster under the common law of Delaware for his

injuries and losses


COUNT III: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983 MONELL CLAIM AS TO CITY
41.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations in this Complaint,

above and below, as though fully set forth herein.


42.

Upon information and belief, City failed to mandate policies, practices, and/or customs

concerning and adequately and properly supervise and train its police officers in various
aspects of law enforcement, including but not limited to, the constitutional bounds and limits
concerning the use of excessive force against persons and suspects within the geographic and
jurisdiction limits of Dover, Delaware.
43.

Upon information and belief, City had a policy and/or custom of failing to properly

investigate alleged incidents of its officers using excessive force or engaging in other police
misconduct. Therefore, City failed to properly supervise, discipline, punish, train, and counsel
its officers that used excessive force or engaged in other police misconduct, providing no
accountability for Citys police officers. This, in turn, has fostered more instances of excessive
force and other police misconduct, including but not limited Websters use of excessive force
against Plaintiff.
44.

The above-described acts and omissions by City demonstrated a deliberate indifference to

the constitutional rights of the citizens of Dover, Delaware and were the direct and proximate
cause of the violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights as set forth herein.
45.

As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing failures by City, Plaintiff suffered the

damages alleged herein.


46.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover under 42 U.S.C. 1983 from City for his injuries and

losses.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
A. All lawful general and special damages in an amount to be determined, against all
Defendants.
B. Injunctive relief ordering and mandating that Defendant City create and mandate policies,
procedures, and customs (including training, counseling, and heightened supervision of its
officers) that would provide for robust and proper internal affairs investigations and resulting
discipline, punishments, training and counseling as is and may be necessary to avoid further
instances of excessive force and other police misconduct.

Plaintiff seeks an enforcement

mechanism that will enable the public to determine whether Defendant City has taken
appropriate remedial measures and complied with the orders of this Court.
C. Plaintiffs cost in this action, including reasonable attorney fees and pre and postjudgment interest.
D. Such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
E. Trial by Jury.

Respectfully submitted,
Date: September 29, 2014

/s/ Richard H. Morse


Richard H. Morse, Esquire, Bar I.D. 531
ACLU FOUNDATION OF DELAWARE
100 West 10th Street, Suite 603
Wilmington, DE 19801
302-654-5326
302-654-3689 (fax)
rmorse@aclu-de.org

THE NORMAN LAW FIRM


/s/Daniel C. Herr
Daniel C. Herr, Esquire, Bar I.D. 5497
1225 N. King Street, Suite 1000
Wilmington, DE 19801
302-595-9084
302-235-3712 (fax)
DHerr@thenormanlawfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen